and she should run. and she should have to add adam and adam mightly editor in chief of net right daily at a welcome thank you for the back the boston bombing we're just we just heard a report. on the news just a few minutes ago those shots been fired we don't this such situation is totally fluid if anything happens of substance that isn't a. i think they're referring to the now as john king reports it's. you know we will share them with you so you know stay tuned to the channel and then we'll let you know what's going on but. these suspects are permanent residents of the u.s. chechen origin the youngest came here to the isis when he was eight years old his older brother might have been radicalized we don't know i mean there's all this all this speculation but in the midst of this now the new york post falsely accused a couple of boston teenagers of those there was a report just about two hours ago of

a muslim woman being beaten up in boston somebody screaming you know muslims at her she was wearing a hijab. and on top of this you've got republicans several members republican members of congress now saying that this proves that you know we need to have a bigger border fences although i don't know how that stops the airplane coming from europe you know but adam your thoughts on this well i mean it's silly at this point to even start suggesting ways that we could have stopped this we're not really even sure what's fully happened here we still have a suspect on the loose there may be more people involved who knows where they get a response to it i'm curious your thoughts on how this is being treated in the media and how america americans are reacting to it so far oh i think there's you know why didn't shock this is the first real american terrorist event that we've been able to watch really unfold on twitter fold through social media networks and . this morning you could have logged into twitter and watched people that were

living right down the street from where the shootout was occurring posting live video footage that's being shot to you would real time not edited by news networks there yes you know in a way that's kind of the good news is is not that it's the first live twitter one but that it's so rare in one's country i mean there are people who are living in places where this kind of thing happened there was that i was i used to work in bogota colombia and i remember one week six explosions went off within three blocks or i mean you know this is back fifteen twenty years ago but sam your thoughts and i think your point's well taken i think what i'm experiencing on my end is a lot of we're tapping into something a lot of people are really responding in a very emotional way to this and the high interest and i think part of it is the new phenomena you can you can tag into it as it's happening and watch it unfold but i think we're also experiencing this sort of general sense of you know this isn't good and i think that on top of all the gun control kind of dialogue that's been

going on right now i'm feeling a sea change quite frankly happening of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle around what do we need to do to make sure that this stuff just stops. at the same time the sort of real emotional connection to what's happening right now here your thoughts on you know how this is a role in a personal level i used to live right in cambridge so you know kind of everything went to went to harvard business school so i veered from you were a lot of that area so a lot of concern a personal note but on top of that i think that you know this question of the role of the media in how they really information is very critical for us going forward the question of when the pictures should have been released to the public when we should have started speculation on you know ethnicity those types of discussions you talk about the lady that was being beaten in boston so how do we get fourth the right. message and make sure that that message is cater properly and to some extent

i mean when when reagan in eighty seven repealed the fairness doctrine the fairness doctrine did not say if you have an hour thom hartmann have to have an hour rush limbaugh what it said was if you're going to renew your license every year radio t.v. station you have to actually perform a public service and that was called news and that's why all the news departments all lost money because they actually performed news and when he repealed that the next year c.b.s. was the first of them within a year all three networks had moved their news divisions on to their entertainment visions and turn them for money losing operations in a money making operations and thus we now have infotainment and news is no longer about here's water cronkite telling you what happened now it's about who can get the eyeballs first who can get the story first and is that not doing us a disservice should we maybe reconsider going back to to some variation on that here you know i think we need to be very careful we need you know regulation i

think that you definitely want to control how journalism relays information at some level but the problem is who's going to determine what's news and what's going to tame it and that's the that's the part that's scary why regulation my question is not so much that but should it be news should news exist for the purpose of a station getting its license renewed or should use exist for the purpose of making money because those will produce two different outcomes that is true that is true and that's the change that we've made soon well i think this taps into the whole other much larger conversation about public funding of you know broadcast and which always causes a huge brouhaha in this country but as fait accompli right in europe right where a lot of broadcasting is publicly funded i would say that i think you point out very brilliantly actually the moment that which everything changed and so now all of this is being driven in a very sensational way. but i would add to this you can pretty much our rumbles are

pretty you know we get into it but there's that again emotional is like ice that's being tapped into right now that's really sobering for all of us i think so and i think it's i think it's it's a healthier one than after nine eleven when it was just this going to somebody give me a gun quick i want to shoot somebody. by the way the boston globe is reporting right at this moment in watertown massachusetts you know where this is a special three months i was in to that this young man is apparently pinned down in a police firefight so. why are the boston globe so i can't account for the move let's let's let's move on to gun control here speaking of firefights on wednesday the mansion to me background check mind boggling compromise i mean they did find a gun show as seventy five or more weapons being weapons dealers i mean so now we're going to start having gun shows with seventy four it's just i mean this this it already had a huge loopholes in it but it was an attempt to close the gun show loophole and and

say you know if you're going to buy a gun you have to do the same thing at doing a licensed gun dealer right now which is you know it takes three minutes to check with the f.b.i. database and find out if you've got a restraining order against you for domestic violence if you've ever been convicted of a violent crime if you've served if you're a felon or if you have a history of domestic violence has produced there's a particular result of legal term for whatever it is and the n.r.a. a while and they follow the republicans even though this thing got enough votes to pass a core in the constitution it got filibuster huey how can the republicans hold their heads up there i mean this was there were four democrats who voted for this chain fully in my opinion but virtually all of the republicans were a couple of exceptions susan collins and john mccain showed showed some courage but the rest of these people you know i know we need to have a very mature conversation about guns a good thing but the one thing that you have to be concerned about. talk about

personal freedoms this question of this of a national registry and do did the bill provide enough protection against the development of a national registry and i think that was the biggest the bill explicitly prohibited a national registry how do you do this without having some form of a database that is that is so absurd that is like saying i'm we're not going to pass this piece of legislation that has to do with. you know bakeries because some day somebody might use that to say that everybody's you know has to stop driving cars i mean there's no all legislation today has come about just because of previous legislation he's exactly right as a starter is this slippery slope argument is that that is a caracal alice that we didn't get out to modernize less and we would all agree after all of the gun violence we've had recently we've got to do something and these are just excuses no no these are excuses for not getting the right job done this bill that just failed no it was an excuse this was i want to point out it was

a woman republican susan collins who did the right thing and i just want to make my usual pitch if we just had more women and we weren't made ninety seventh of the world we had eighteen percent of us congress is women right now we would have gun control today this is absolute ridiculous because it's ok but you are to some background os just a little beyond any control would not prevent ninety three days percent of the nation is for a bad thing provided having criminals is doing crime we do it's not prevented ninety percent of the nation really wanted background checks would have happened that is blatantly you know the no the n.r.a. is one of the biggest lobbies in giving money you know word but i apologize i apologize they let let me just change this of i made the n.r.a. has successfully lobbied since the eighty's when the left wing was blowing up people. against the use of what are called tag. kind soon. actually was the weather

underground i think an effect of you know linda evans and burn that dorna one and when that stuff happened there was the technology had been developed where there's a chemical tags put into the gunpowder and you can track it back to the main source of manufacture and find a chain of custody for and the n.r.a. started lobbying against it again after the or after the nine hundred ninety three world trade center bombing there was another call for these and ari lobbied against it successfully the oklahoma city bombing even though it didn't involve gun powder it was brought up again in congress and killed it the n.r.a. has become the lobby for bombers how can they possibly. but best craft of regulation is not going to stop an evil person from doing evil so they're going to out of the question do away with this just do away with laws against bank robbery because you're not going to stop all bank robbers gentleman has a work had i mean we need legislation in the n.r.a. distorts the whole legislative process by the pressure and the money they bring to bear and gun manufacturers overwhelmingly fund the n.r.a.

and so what's happening is our whole legislation and legislative processes are being distorted by the folks that are making the guns and that's the beginning of the making the go but as you try to deal with that argument though you're saying it's not an argument it's reality but you're saying that the freedom in protecting the second the minute we should we should not be concerned about because there's a lobbying effort from industry this is nothing to do with a study that involved there is never wanted to see assault weapons in the hands of the criminally insane i'm sorry ok so there needs to be drawn somewhere here saying thank you but is this the proper line how is it that you're telling me this is the proper line you mentioned a few minutes ago by saying he's you know knowing where i'm knowing where the where the gun powder came from if i give him my first amendment right of free speech you know where those words came from yes so if somebody's shooting at me should we know where that bullet came from that is that wish to know what's that going to prevent what is that it would have the right to do it one of the event while the case of this explosion they could have known it. mediately where there that's right and

what in the hell is guys all odds i'm a way to spend this but how long did it take them to figure that out anyway they figured out within twenty four hours that's that's not how many or how many people might have died had it i mean we can we can do this is a as a logical exercise but i just i'm just boggled what the n.r.a. is the lobby for bombers and how more of tonight's big picture rubble coming up at . a clear image of iraq after. twenty day taxi trip through the country. the roads. clear evidence from north to south. the route of iraqi tragedy. after the war waiting for peace. talks e r t.

let me let me i want to wouldn't let me ask you a question. here on this network as we're having the debate we have our knives out. but if it is the slightest spank staying there again we're in a situation where being i can't wait to talk about the surveillance. i've .

so. water bag the big picture rubble joining me tonight are huey newsome sam bennett and adam whitely let's get back to it a new report from the associated press reveals that west chemical and fertilizer company the plant in texas west the west is actually the town it's not the part of

texas little legal teams and doctors had not been inspected by osho since one thousand nine hundred eighty five and they were sitting on enough of this money and nitrate which is what tim mcveigh used in his bomb to blow up west texas which is what happened and although they had in two thousand and six they've been cited for not having good risk management paid a fine but nobody had inspected them. i would submit that this is a good example of why we need. and check out this video. so adam in your libertarian world the way that you solve these problems is these people die this thing blows up and everybody else goes oh that's terrible this is there's actually an example of why big government wouldn't have saved these people there was already regulations on the books but there was no exaggeration the

government wasn't big enough which is you know they were quite big and they could've gone down any time they wanted to and taken a look oh no there are the days but there's two and suppose you say whatever pages they were paid off they didn't call it received they're fine they've received their fine and they didn't go down there and check it out for there are and that they say there is there are so where did the inspector. know if he had him is making the argument for an even bigger bigger government oh he's saying company lied to the government broad i didn't go to law and therefore we go to i don't really know that they were totally. you don't have to find weight that was what the regulation was they don't have another thread but if they only have the overhead i could even talk but they don't have enough regulators if i read the statistics right what their current budget amount allows them to do is inspect firms like this once every sixty seven years listen this is penny wise and pound foolish when you look at the number

of work race workplace related deaths that happened and the amount of money that is spent to compensate families or health care costs for the injured we would spend less money i would postulate if we just had spent a little bit more and more inspectors said so i don't think that's healthy because i'm going to have these i'm saying i think at the state level at the federal level more money is being put in to giving people individuals households families money to meet their individual needs so these communal needs that we need to take care of such as inspecting this plant aren't getting taken care of here so you're saying because of the failed experiment of thirty two years of reaganomics that has devastated the middle class and thrown so many people with food stamps poverty and unemployment because of that we should cut back on regulations so i didn't say that i didn't say about their lives right now ok so you need to in order to make that argument you have to prove that reaganomics and has put us in this family place number one in this organization is different thirty two years has which there's a whole different discussion which i completely disagree with that reaganomics is

the cause of our of the fiscal situation we have at the federal level place at the individual state level which is. pretty bad ok so the three decades when we had the highest growth rate more than three point two percent per decade in the history of america in the sixty's seventy's preceded reagan and had the top tax rate ninety four percent reagan. let's take that tax rate argument down because you have many many different levels of income strata in the tax code during that time so you have told you no it's called progressive tax code no no no what reagan did is he minimize the. number of income levels so as we see turning from say seven down to five or so i was and still you only have a very telling mostly what he did as he took that he took that well actually was l.b.j. took the ninety four percent ninety one percent out of seventy four percent to close so many loopholes the billionaires actually paid more in taxes as kennedy promised in one thousand nine hundred eighty he's going to raise taxes on the rich although everybody on the right argues that he did so and here's the question if

you blame reaganomics for that then the question then becomes what if there are two problems with that argument one is the fact that historically we've seen roughly eighteen percent of g.d.p. coming into the federal coffers we've done well it's varied between if you're talking about was i want to fight within the twentieth century has been within a year to twenty mins from softly so the key is right raising g.d.p. vs instead of focusing on tax rates well of course and so how have we most effectively raised you know the by deficit spending we did it with world war two we did it with the highs in our highway project we did it with the great society we did it with a man on the moon i mean we know you can't give me past nine hundred sixty not the world's changed since we made it out we should just we should just be going for no reason just that he should just sweep the rest of the world and recover or his recovery and it will be my good name is that because i love what you just said the communal spending will communal spending is there and if it's done right in

strategically you make sure your average citizen is educated well and can compete in a global society and that in very investments are made so that we can lead the world in things like alternative energy but that's not happening right now because all we want to do is not tax the people tom what is the tax rate now for the very wealthy as compared to the reagan era welfare now it's the top tax rate is thirty nine percent but if you're in your living sitting on your butt around the pool waiting for the dividend checks to come in like mitt romney in paris hilton do is twenty percent will see that as gone down since mcgregor came into office was seventy four percent thank you so we're we have been engaged if you want talk about community. we have been gauging an experiment that actually effectively lets the very wealthiest who have far more capacity to give keep more of their money and taking money away from others and then cutting all the spending that helps lift everyone's quality of life and lift our global performance in the world why are we ranked eighteenth in the world in the quality of education should live or to our children why do we want thirty years in the world in the caliber of health care but into our

citizens why because of those policies i'm sorry overall spending has not gone down so where so why that is that money is not available steady has been calling balance the demands are all very sorry but there is nothing left to do you can i shouldn't say all these things are stupid there this is the latest roll could it why they guess why because the big government provider has no competition there is no incentive to have a billion like that and that is very very true a little pizza gartman own legitimacy and you know that no you're not actually going to see and i just this is this is a point that we could go we will go around in circles forever so let's move along since we're talking about taxes this is toxic slurry that comes down from canada that we haven't even figured out how to clean up yet as we discovered from the key from the kalamazoo well spill and now the arc and saw oil spill the stuff it's called liquid liquid eyes by two men or something like that is that it turns out that koch industries has twenty five percent apparently important to tar sands

crude you know right now they're going to be refining down in in. on the golf that the pipeline will admit as much carbon into the atmosphere is fifty one coal plants it will create thirty five permanent jobs fifteen temporary jobs once it's up and running and there is normally when you run an oil pipeline you pay a small tax into a fund called the oil spill liability trust fund that helps pay for cleanups when oil pipelines crack and spill as they always do i mean they're there for good we do however the stuff coming through this pie. line is not oil is not coming through this pipeline is a toxic slurry called tar sand sludge whatever called liquid i called i to and and therefore therefore it has been exempted since nineteen eighty from having to pay into the tar the oil spill bill of the trust fund and that exemption just for the keystone x.l. will be worth three hundred thirty five million dollars between two thousand and

ten and twenty seven assuming this happens isn't this piling insanity and insanity i don't think so at all here's the question that i still have not seen liberals or environmental answer is the question of ok if the pipeline doesn't happen you talk about this the commissions from fifty one coal plants what what happens in its place because now you still have reduced demand and is going to have to buy their oil someplace else xander was going to have to buy there also have cell phone or her white gets built a different direction which was the actual plan so i said ok and what i don't know it wouldn't take in the navy they will if there is a will of the organisms to sell could i postulate a free market answer to this everything would get more expensive alternative fuels would seem like a reasonable thing to invest by private industry but then we could be as we could become the world leader in alternative energy solutions will the free market will build the most likely they will they wouldn't voluntarily so let's pay more that's not actually are used for the extra now is the remit is subsidizing the cost of

that pipeline by allowing this exemption to exist because guess what the spill is going to happen and who's going to pay for it is when when it happened you talk about free market the government is continues to subsidize alternative energy as well he still hasn't taken off on his own so ok's we're going to miss is what you use them you know spending for when you have high reset risk or long term returns and you're not at the point that i would make is that there is no free market here at all we're we're we're spending hundreds that you are as they say in the system is broken spending is not gonna spend hundreds of billions of dollars protecting the oil routes from saudi arabia the united states is exxon mobil paying a penny of that no. they. are they do they they do they do you even have you do you have to do they do you know what i'm going to demand that protection but i do not pay the appropriate amount taxes or you believe necessary but they do pay taxes and kansas passed a bill yesterday that would allow state officials to test any welfare recipient for drugs urine test for drugs but they tried those down in florida a year and a half ago two years ago after governor rick scott who's just by coincidence.

became multimillionaire owning a company that does drug testing got that passed in in florida and discovered that not only did the welfare recipients have a lower rate of positive tests than just random people off the street two percent and change as opposed to three point four percent change if i'm remembering the numbers right but that it was an incredible waste of money and they they gave up on it and in fact according been found that it was unconstitutional and illegal. so i don't get and i just don't get this this seems to me like it's really got nothing to do with drugs unless you've got an industry that's driving this thing pain the drug testing industry paying off members of congress but it has everything to do is shame a no welfare recipients if you will pay into this cup before you start on this one i'm going to say you know i serve as a governor appointee on the on the our counties lehigh county board of assistance

in pennsylvania and we have found ourselves have been on that board now since two thousand and eight that these kinds of drug testing methodology are absolutely counterproductive absolutely don't work and nobody uses them anymore it's absolutely ridiculous not only because you're shaming people who are already struggling to survive but what do you do with someone who's injured didn't god forbid they have children and you're withholding their welfare payments or their with checks or whatever while you're waiting to find out if that test is positive or negative a test is positive they've got a disease that's called drug addiction they should actually get traditional services jointly let me just that we just have thirty seconds let me just toss a real quick. you're the former drug czar for the united kingdom ago a guy by the name of david knott he has said that the financial crisis was caused by bankers using too much cocaine should we drug test bank. hey you know what if they're receiving a go for it ok because i was sure that i have to work in order if i have to work and do a drug test in order to earn the taxpayer money to pay for what i want the same

thing on the other so we don't like baxter's thank you all for they can too thanks don up next a bigger picture discussion on the state of our national security. more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. showing corporations rule the day.

the more like. white coat camps army. private. lynch. coming out.

the back of the international apples in the very heart of moscow. although back in events in boston this week heather reignited a debate about the war on terror by the way with regard to the events in boston there are. reports from numerous news sources that shots were fired at a boat in the yard and we are waiting for a robot to go in and find out if there's a body of that boat so we'll keep you up to date.